Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now why would Coburn overturn a law that restricts mentally ill residents from owning a gun, particularly since the NRA was supportive of the law. He claimed this was a violation of the second amendment.
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Charles Schumer blocked a pro-gun amendment to the Defense Authorization Act on Thursday night in a showdown on the Senate floor with its sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Coburn, an OklahomaRepublican, squared off at 10:30 p.m., their weapons the Senate's arcane rules.
At stake was Coburn's amendment to allow mentally ill military veterans to buy guns by stripping away part of a landmark gun-control law.
Congress enacted that legislation in 2007 after a schizophrenic man fatally shot the Rev. Lawrence Penzes and a parishioner at Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Lynbrook in 2002.
Coburn's amendment was expected to pass if he managed to attach it to a series of votes Friday needing just 51 ayes. He threatened to block the defense bill if any senator objected.
But Schumer said, "I object."
Now why would Coburn overturn a law that restricts mentally ill residents from owning a gun, particularly since the NRA was supportive of the law. He claimed this was a violation of the second amendment.
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Charles Schumer blocked a pro-gun amendment to the Defense Authorization Act on Thursday night in a showdown on the Senate floor with its sponsor, Sen. Tom Coburn.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Coburn, an OklahomaRepublican, squared off at 10:30 p.m., their weapons the Senate's arcane rules.
At stake was Coburn's amendment to allow mentally ill military veterans to buy guns by stripping away part of a landmark gun-control law.
Congress enacted that legislation in 2007 after a schizophrenic man fatally shot the Rev. Lawrence Penzes and a parishioner at Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church in Lynbrook in 2002.
Coburn's amendment was expected to pass if he managed to attach it to a series of votes Friday needing just 51 ayes. He threatened to block the defense bill if any senator objected.
But Schumer said, "I object."
If Schumer is for it, I am against it and in this case I believe that unless something is done to prove a person unstable enough not to have a gun either a judge or a doctor should be the one to make that decision. I am with Coburn, once again, if he changes back to his original thinking.
Schumer is not always wrong, do you propose that they take away rights after a mentally ill person kills someone. If someone is deemed unfit to possess a firearm they can prove themselves capable. Rather odd that Coburn only singled out veterans for preferential treatment since he is interested in 2nd amendment rights
I think that gun laws (on the federal level) are fine for the moment. Shouldn't those two Senators be worried more about other things, like... I dunno... making sure we don't go into debt so deep MY grandkids won't be able to help fix it? (I'm 22)
The problem here is that the whole psychiatric profession is a mess. When I was a kid, their official diagnostic manual declared homosexuality as a disorder. Now, homophobia is a disorder. What if some shrink decides that a returning GI can't own a gun because he's a fundamentalist Christian and therefore anti-gay?
If they could come up with some reasonable guidelines that would apply to the Loughners and the guy in Aurora Co, I would be for it. But it would have to be done with extreme care, given the state of psychiatry.
Someone who gets treatment for, say, thoughts of suicide, depression over a breakup, etc. should not have to worry about having their 2nd Amendment rights revoked.
"Coburn argued that the law strips veterans of their Second Amendment rights. Mentally ill veterans should be able to buy or have guns -- unless a court finds them to be a danger."
Why would anyone be in favor of a mentally ill person (veteran or not) owning a gun? I'm baffled.
I am not familiar with this case.. My guess is the Govt created prohibited persons from Vets, by deeming them with some false charges... Typical of the current Admin.
The Lefty Elite is screwy. They have ccw permits and yet think no one else should...
Why would anyone be in favor of a mentally ill person (veteran or not) owning a gun? I'm baffled.
You missed the a part about "unless a court finds them to be a danger"
Quote:
"All we're asking for the veterans of this country is that if their rights are taken away, that it be adjudicated by a judge or a magistrate . . . rather than a social worker at the V.A.," Coburn said Thursday night.
You're not turning the mentally ill free to buy guns but instead allowing a court to make that decision instead of arbitrarily being made by someone at the VA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
